Appeal No. 1999-0098
Application No. 08/328,443
they were "rigidly secured together as a single unit" and "so
combined as to constitute a unitary whole" (340 F.2d at 967,
144 USPQ at 349). In the present case, Tanguy’s guide 15 and
nail 1 do not meet this definition.
The fact that the term "integral" "is not necessarily
restricted to a one-piece article," and "may be construed as
relatively broad," as stated in In re Kohno and In re Dike,
supra , does not mean that all parts which are attached5
together may be said to be "integrally" attached. Contrary to
the well settled principle that specific limitations in a
claim cannot be ignored, In re Boe, 505 F.2d 1297, 1299, 184
USPQ 38, 40 (CCPA 1974), here the examiner’s interpretation in
effect gives no weight to the limitation "integrally," for if
the guide member and pin of Tanguy can be construed as being
integrally attached together by ball detent 20, it is
difficult to imagine how any two parts could be non-integrally
attached together.
5See also Advanced Cardiovascular Systems v. Scimed Life
Systems Inc., 887 F.2d 1070, 1074, 12 USPQ2d 1539, 1542 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007